Internal Decision Readiness & Authorising Pathway (Informational)

This page works best when used after some initial reflection using other Readiness Library tools, such as:

• Readiness Reflection Tool (Informational) – broad questions across the five stages.
• Assumption Risk & Traceability Check (Informational) – where habits and workarounds may sit.
• Board & Executive Conversation Guide (Informational) – prompts for leadership-level discussion.
• Clarity & Orientation Tools (Informational) – definitions, clarifications, and FAQ.

After reviewing those, organisations may wish to ask:

• Do we feel we have a reasonable understanding of what Governance Five™ © is and is not?
• Have we identified any areas where a single governance flow could reduce confusion or duplication?
• Are there high-exposure programs or claims where traceability would clearly add value?

If the answer to these questions is largely “yes”, the organisation may feel ready to map its own internal pathway for further exploration. If not, it may prefer to remain in the reflection and awareness stage for longer.

Every organisation has its own structure. This section offers generic prompts to help identify who may need to be involved in any internal discussion about Governance Five™ ©.

• Board / Governing body – for oversight of governance structures, public claims, and long-term risk.
• Chief Executive / Head of organisation – for strategic fit, authorising environment, and culture.
• Audit & Risk committees – for traceability, assurance, and exposure considerations.
• Legal, compliance, or governance teams – for advice on obligations, licensing, and alignment with existing frameworks.
• ESG, social value, impact, or strategy teams – where Governance Five™ © may support complex claims.
• Procurement, capital works, or program offices – where structured decision flows can reduce duplication.
• Relevant community, stakeholder or advisory groups – where decisions directly affect people or public value.

Organisations may adapt this list to their own context. In some settings, a small working group may prepare early thinking for later consideration by formal decision-makers.

Before initiating a formal process, organisations may wish to reflect on a few neutral questions:

• Do we have clear reasons for considering a single governance system (for example, reduced duplication, stronger traceability, or support for public claims)?
• Have we identified specific programs, portfolios, or domains where Governance Five™ © would be most relevant, rather than considering it in the abstract?
• Are we prepared to resource internal work (thinking, mapping, engagement) if we decide to explore alignment or licensing?
• Have we considered whether our existing frameworks could be strengthened internally, and how Governance Five™ © might complement, not replace, those obligations?
• Do we have a sense of what a “no” or “not yet” outcome would look like, and how we would record and communicate that internally?

These questions are not a test. They simply help ensure that any internal exploration of Governance Five™ © is considered, purposeful, and proportionate.

Every organisation has its own way of moving an idea from early curiosity to a formal decision. This section offers a generic pattern that can be adapted to different structures and legal traditions.

An internal authorising pathway might include steps such as:

• Initial interest and exploration – individuals or a small group read public materials and reflect using the Readiness Library.
• Internal concept note – a short, neutral paper summarising:
  • why Governance Five™ © is being considered
  • which areas it may relate to
  • what questions remain unanswered
• Informal discussion with key advisors – for example governance, legal, risk, or policy leads.
• Decision whether to proceed to formal consideration – for example by a committee or the full board.
• Formal consideration – where authorised decision-makers review options, risks, costs, and benefits as part of their normal governance processes.

This pathway is purely illustrative. Organisations should map their own steps to align with existing delegations, authorising environments, and consultation expectations.

Where one or more individuals take responsibility for preparing internal thinking, they may find these prompts useful:

• Have we clearly described why we are exploring Governance Five™ © now (for example regulatory shifts, audit expectations, or duplication pressures)?
• Are we being careful not to promise outcomes (savings, approvals, endorsements) that are outside our role or control?
• Have we made it clear that Governance Five™ © is a licensed system, not a generic label or regulatory requirement?
• Have we outlined options – such as “do nothing”, “strengthen internal frameworks only”, “explore Governance Five™ ©”, or “consider other approaches” – rather than presenting a single pathway?
• Have we highlighted potential risks and limitations, not just potential benefits, so that decision-makers receive a balanced view?

These questions support internal sponsors to act in a way that is transparent, neutral, and aligned with their organisation’s best interests and duties.

Whether an organisation decides to proceed, pause, or not engage with Governance Five™ © at all, there can be value in recording and communicating the decision internally.

• Has a clear record of deliberation been kept (for example minutes, board paper, or decision note)?
• Is it clear which authorised body or person made the decision and on what basis?
• Have we communicated the outcome, in an appropriate way, to relevant internal teams so that expectations are managed?
• If the decision is “not now” or “not in this form”, have we identified circumstances under which it might be revisited?
• If we proceed to explore licensing, have we confirmed who will lead further engagement and how it will be governed?

Recording decisions in this way supports accountability and reduces the risk of informal or misunderstood commitments.

It is entirely legitimate for an organisation to conclude that now is not the right time to consider Governance Five™ © in depth. Recognising this openly can help maintain trust.

Situations where a pause or “not now” decision may be reasonable include, for example:

• Major internal reforms, restructures, or crises that already stretch governance capacity.
• Significant uncertainty about the organisation’s mandate, role, or future direction.
• Insufficient internal resourcing to explore or implement any new governance system responsibly.
• Legal or regulatory circumstances where other priorities must be addressed first.
• A considered judgement that existing frameworks are currently adequate, with a plan to revisit the question later.

A pause or “not yet” outcome does not close the door. It simply reflects the organisation’s current context and duties. If circumstances change, the Readiness Library and Clarity & Orientation tools remain available for future use.